🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular museum in broad daylight, grabbing eight pieces of priceless Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, executed for international notoriety and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Experts who observe trends in international art crime, however, see the recent heist at the Louvre as a more practical matter: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the monetary worth of precious stones or metals than the historical importance, continuing a trend that has emerged over the last decade in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they propose, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“You may ask why criminals who want to take valuable jewellery are breaking into a globally renowned museum rather than a luxury jewelry store,” said Christopher A Marinello. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is more secure.”

A series of violent jewellery shop thefts indicate that many stores have beefed up their protection in the past few years, with security personnel on their locations and wares no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, in part because of the in-built reason of being public-facing institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the globe have reduced spending on law enforcement and the culture sector,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it demonstrates how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a horrible time to be a museum.”

The robbery of the objects – featuring necklaces made up of eight sapphires and hundreds of gems, the crown of a historical figure featuring nearly 2,000 diamonds and a extremely expensive crown once owned by a royal that the thieves left by the roadside on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, carried out by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better points of reference may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over millions, the taking of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the 2017 robbery of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a series of robberies of sports memorabilia from US mining museums.

“It's a clear trend here,” explained Marinello. “Smash, grab, and melt it down as rapidly as possible.”

If the items were to remain intact, experts say, the criminals would find it hard to find a buyer. “It's impossible to sell something as immediately identifiable as the Louvre’s jewels on the licit market”, commented an art crime researcher of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, particularly given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a individual buyer or an sales venue would want to see documentation confirming legal possession before touching such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often hesitant to go public about the disappearance of famous works of art and would stay silent out of shame. These days, as art thefts are more reported on, the keeping and selling of taken items is dangerous for any criminal.

“Taking a famous painting, it has to remain intact or it becomes valueless, and you have to conceive of a plan to conceal it, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” noted Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner telling the police to cash in a reward.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was highly improbable that the robbery had been ordered. “Stolen to order is something from Hollywood movies,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It’s all around the world and in all the media. If you acquire these, if you get caught, you go to jail. You cannot show it to your acquaintances, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Modifying stolen works by melting down or re-cutting does reduce the value. When it comes to gems, it also comes with significant danger because modern methods give stones a bigger and lighter appearance, and antique-cut stones would either draw unwanted attention or barter the price down for a coverup.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the theft. “My guess is that the Louvre thieves will try to bring the items to places with gem knowledge like a country, another nation or even as nearby as a city, and locate an expert to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The heist at the Louvre has already raised questions about protective steps at the museum, with a unauthorized state auditor report expected to be released soon criticising “considerable” and “ongoing” delays in updating equipment and observing that security cameras were lacking in multiple areas. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a steady stream of guests comes with risks that are not possible to remove entirely.

“Historic buildings are more difficult to secure,” said an art crime professor. “Many of them have large accessible windows that allows for thieves to get away, and there may be preservation laws in place that mean you can’t fit them with proper bulletproof glass.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “as a stronghold”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be multiple levels to repel attackers.”

Modern buildings are equipped with state-of-the-art external CCTV cameras or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a broken glass in real time, but old museums may be reluctant to alter their exteriors. Detection devices can be hard to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be disabled during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which took place between 9.30am and 9.40am local time, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security change their shifts and before the museum is crowded who actually act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have introduced new devices that can raise the alarm more quickly and effectively, but it has also provided thieves new methods with which to circumvent protections. In the city, the thieves reached the museum’s upper level with a mobile equipment and breached a glass pane with a electric tool.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic building had mostly focused on crowd control in recent years, and not as much on security.

The museum has an on-site team of about fifty permanent firefighters, but their purpose is mainly to safeguard the collection from fires and flooding. “There isn't a quick reaction team,” Sciolino said. “Ultimately, the security of the Louvre all comes down to government support and funding, and currently the nation lacks sufficient money.”